Sharon v. Hill

• Decision Date: 03 March 1884
• Citation: 20 F. 1
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of California
• Parties: SHARON v. HILL.

20 F. 1

SHARON v. HILL.

United States Circuit Court, D. California.

March 3, 1884

This is a suit in equity to declare null and void, and to cancel, an instrument claimed to be a contract of marriage, executed under the laws of the state of California, between William Sharon, of the state of Nevada, complainant, and Sarah Althea Hill, of the state of California, defendant, said contract being claimed to be a forgery. This contract is in the words and figures following, to-wit:

'In the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, on the twenty-fifty day of August, A.D. 1880 I, Sarah Althea Hill, of the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, aged 27 years, do here in the presence of Almighty God, take Senator William Sharon, of the state of Nevada, to be my lawful and wedded husband, and do here acknowledge and declare myself to be the wife of Senator William Sharon, of the state of Nevada.

'SARAH ALTHEA HILL.

'August 25, 1880, San Francisco, Cal.

'I agree not to make known the contents of this paper or its existence for two years, unless Mr. Sharon himself see fit to make it known.

'S. A. HILL.

'In the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, on the twenty-fifth day of August, A.D. 1880, I, Senator Wm. Sharon, of the state of Nevada, aged 60 years, do here, in the presence of Almighty God, take Sarah Althea Hill, of the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., to be my lawful and wedded wife, and do here acknowledge myself to be the husband of Sarah Althea Hill.

'WM. SHARON, Nevada.

'August 25, 1880.'

There was at the time of the commencement of this action, and is still pending and on trial, an action by the defendant herein, in the state courts, for a divorce from the complainant herein, based on the marriage claimed to be consummated by this contract.

The defendant demurred to the bill herein on the ground that it does not present a case for equitable relief.

W. H. L. Barnes, for complainant.

Tyler & Tyler, for defendant.

Before SAWYER and SABIN, JJ.

SAWYER J., (orally.)

This is a suit in equity to declare null and void, and to cancel, an instrument which is claimed to be a contract of marriage between William Sharon, complainant, and Sarah Althea Hill, defendant. The point of the demurrer interposed is that the bill does not present a case for equitable relief. We have examined the question fully, and we are satisfied, upon the principles established by the various authorities cited by complainant's counsel, that it is a proper case for equitable jurisdiction. The bill presents a case of forgery and fraud. The contract purports to have been drawn and executed in pursuance of the provisions of section 75 of the Civil Code of California. The Code of California makes a marriage contract purely a civil contract for all legal purposes, like any other civil contract. This supposed contract is alleged to be a forgery, and to be fraudulent. It purports to be in writing, and to be signed by the parties; and the defendant claims, by virtue of it, to be the wife of complainant, and to have an interest in his property, which is alleged to be of the value of several millions of dollars. There is no adequate remedy at law for complainant against the claim set up under the alleged contract, and no means at law to annul it at the suit of complainant. The defendant can choose her own time for enforcing her claim under the alleged contract, even after the death of the other party. Fraud has always been one of the principal heads of equity jurisdiction.

The instrument in question is alleged to be a forgery and a fraud. If it is a forgery, it is of course a fraud also. The only parties...